Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED]

  • So if you someone tells you something, it becomes a fact for you?

    Nope. I ask lots of questions. I know a thing or two about calorimetry. I can usually tell when people know what they are doing.


    I would point out that you, on the other hand, know nothing about what IH did, and nothing about what Rossi did except for what was revealed in Exhibit 5. So you have no basis to judge the results.

  • I would point out that you, on the other hand, know nothing about what IH did, and nothing about what Rossi did except for what was revealed in Exhibit 5. So you have no basis to judge the results.


    Haven't you said a few times in the past that we now know everything that you know? That you have revealed all of your inside information? Or are we still playing the secret game? So, what did your good people tell you specifically about their testing of the e-Cat?

  • Haven't you said a few times in the past that we now know everything that you know? That you have revealed all of your inside information?

    Why would I reveal inside information? It wouldn't be inside any more if I did! Why would anyone tell it to me it in the first place if I went around revealing it? What you say makes no sense.


    With regard to the 1-year test, yes, you now know everything I know. It is all in Exhibit 5. However, you may not believe Exhibit 5 is the truth. Whereas I know that Exhibit described the test accurately, because I saw some of the data the Exhibit describes. Also, Rossi rather helpfully described the data to Lewan and others in enough detail that I could confirm it came from him. That was inadvertent but helpful.

    • Official Post

    IHFB,


    Jed has been mentioning that Exhibit 5 so much, I get the feeling you are simply blocking it whenever it is brought up? But maybe it is time for you to see it again, or maybe look at it for the first time...whatever. It is very damning by any account, even for a layperson that knows nothing about this stuff. Perhaps you could make a comment after reading? This is Murray questioning Penon :


    At different points in time during the assumed 350 operational days of the “test” you were measuring, a number of the reactors were turned off (apparently for repair). At even more points in time, different units within the reactors were either turned off or simply disabled. Yet there does not appear to be any impact on the mass flow rate in the system. How is that a credible outcome?

    In fact, from June 30, 2015 through July 27, 2015, the effective flowed water in the unit
    was, according to your daily valuation report for that period, 36,000 Kg/d on each and every day, without deviation. See Exhibit B. How is that plausible? It should be virtually impossible to have that level of consistency even over just a one-week period, let alone a one-month period.



    3. The number of reactor units in operation varied substantially over time.
    As discussed on February 16, 2016 while at the location, 21 of the 64 units in the 4 large
    reactors had clearly been disabled, leaving only 43 of those 64 units that may have been
    operational. Also, all 51 of the smaller units were disabled. See Exhibit C (examples).
    Similarly, at the time you completed the “MW1-USA electrical measurement” chart on
    October 13, 2015, out of operation were all 51 of the smaller units, one of the large reactors
    (containing 16 units), and 17 of the 48 units in the remaining 3 large reactors. That means only
    31 units were operational. In contrast, according to your February 2015 report, 111 units were
    operational at the beginning of the “test.”



    Your reports do not account for these substantial variations. There is no explanation as to
    how the energy output at times increased or stayed constant during periods when a substantial number of the units were inoperable and/or the average power supply into the system was decreased. There is also no explanation as to how other variables, such as the flow rate, were not impacted in an expected manner by changes in the number of operating units.

  • @Jed


    So I guess we continue the charade of I have a secret and you can't know it. Fine, play that way.


    Shane D.


    I've read the immaculate Exhibit 5, upon which Jed repeatedly hangs his hat. It was ostensibly written by Murray, a non-expert in the field. It has the ring of legalese. I suspect it was polished up by Jones Day and tacked on as an exhibit, albeit with no signature. The whole purpose of Murray and Exhibit 5, I suspect, was to posture for the inevitable dispute and litigation. It means little. It certainly is not proof.

  • Advice for A.R. from axil


    The best way to convince a jury that your system works is to prove it in public before the trial begins. Delaying proof of performance just improves the case for the defence. Put up now Rossi or face the eventual consequences. Put your system on 60 Minutes and put it through its paces. Show the world what it can really do; the sooner the better. Get the media on your side. Put the buzz about the E-Cat on every lip. If you don't show what you got, then you got nothing. Nothing succeeds more than success. Success breeds more success.

  • Quote

    There are famous examples of non-working patents such as Lilienfeld's semiconductor, from 1930. This was never implemented, and probably would not have worked,

    This is just the trap: if it was never attempted to replicate, how can we know, that it never worked? Actually Lillienfeld developed unipolar field effect transistor, which is simpler than this bipolar one and which you can improvise from nearly every semiconductor in the kitchen. So it's probable, that Lillienfeld's transistor would work too and I even think, that his patent was based on real samples given the materials he used.


    Quote

    I believe anyone without having something good cooking in their own laboratory would be very uneasy about doing a deal in Raleigh right now.


    You're not obliged to believe anything - but the assumption, that something is impossible is based on belief by itself. This is very symmetric attitude - you should have some good cooking in your own laboratory before ultimately dismissing something.


    Quote

    If you don't show what you got, then you got nothing. Nothing succeeds more than success.


    If only Rossi would follow his own advices... ;)


  • This is another misunderstanding of the issues here. From the Court documents so far we get indications of future evidential arguments - not proof. But adding them up Rossi has delivered nothing but words. IH has delivered credible points that can be tested fully in Court.


    Furthermore we already have prima facie evidence that rossi is a liar, and has lied to both Hydrofusion and IH. For this to be so clear at this preliminary stage is extraordinary.


    Jed here has more information than most of us, and delivers his strong verdict on the test evidence he has seen. I think many here will not entirely believe him, since his interpretations of matters that are public, and have been tested, are somewhat one-sided. Personally, without judging Jed's contribution (impossible given he has evidence i do not) the totality of physical evidence released so far makes it clear to me that beyond reasonable doubt Rossi's test is so corrupted that it cannot prove his device works. At all. Can it prove his device does not work? No, because the less reliable a test the more difficult it is for it to prove anything!


    In this case, with Rossi's test, we have not only the (typical for Rossi) problematic calorimetry - in this case the issue we know is assumption of phase change when evidence indicates no phase change - we have other problems with data as suggested in this exhibit. And were the physical evidence not so contaminated we still have a test overseen by Rossi 24/7 in his box, an ERV who has vanished, and no way to trust the data.


    IHFB and a few others here want strongly to find an explanation of these facts that shows IH to be an evil scheming corporation trying to cover up evidence of LENR for financial motives. I can understand that motive, though I don't share it. It falls down on so many levels when tested against public fact and common sense that I find it totally false.


    I think also from his comments above that IHFB misunderstands the relationship between IH corporate actions and blog PR. IH, as a serious company (whether you think them muddle-headed or visionary in what they attempt to do) have throughout avoided blog wars and prejudicial comment. They have always sought to minimise disagreement between themselves and Rossi, as you'd expect given the possibility for settlement. Rossi has done the reverse.


    IH have many motivations here. To preserve/regain money. To make sure the "Rossi phenomena" that they have "crushed the tests" on and found null does not inhibit other more promising research investment. To keep their reputation amongst the LENR community - from which they hope to have laid at some point a large golden egg.


    I find pro-IH commentators here - notably Abd, Jed, and Dewey, entirely understandable and straight. Though in Dewey's case he clearly believes in replying to Rossi's dirty tactics in kind with anti-Rossi PR. As an investor in IH whose friend's names are being dragged through the mud by people supporting a known liar and fantasist who can blame him? Personally I find his style a bit over the top, but always enjoyable to read. Jed is Jed and anyone who doubts - correct or false - that he is 100% straight needs IMHO their head examined. Abd is Abd and I regret his loss here though don't think he would happily exist in a place like this. he has even less sense of humour than me which says quite a bit. These commentators are not IH. i'd guess that IH does not mind what Dewey does. possibly they view it with favour as useful PR given the mud slung by Rossi and their legal inability to reply fully. Or possibly - quite likely - they see blog opinion here and on ECW as irrelevant.


    Regards, THH


    PS. IHFB and a few others might view this strong endorsement of IH from me as meaning I have some corrupting relationship with them. I have no such relationship (which of course I cannot prove). But even if I did - so what? The points I make are valid and can be independently checked and considered by anyone. I can't be as strong on the outcome of the Court case. Legal proceedings are sometimes strange and may not get to the scientific and factual truth, though I hope and expect this one will. Whether IH drag it out to the bitter and expensive end remains, to me, doubtful. They have multiple motivations.

  • Furthermore we already have prima facie evidence that rossi is a liar, and has lied to both Hydrofusion and IH. For this to be so clear at this preliminary stage is extraordinary.

    All along, it has been known that AR plays fast and loose with the truth. The hope was that he was doing it for a good purpose (e.g., protecting his IP against greedy interests). Probably, this still remains a hope for those who continue to hold out hope that he has something. It is clear now that the deception also applies to the functioning of his devices and he employs a broad range of deception through the use of puppets and distraction (companies, devices, blog commenters, and now a lawsuit). IMO, he tells people what he is doing through what he accuses others of doing (most recently trying to bring sanctions against IH and lawyers for a frivolous lawsuit). In other words, he covers his actions by accusing others before they can accuse him.

  • I've read the immaculate Exhibit 5, upon which Jed repeatedly hangs his hat. It was ostensibly written by Murray, a non-expert in the field. It has the ring of legalese. I suspect it was polished up by Jones Day and tacked on as an exhibit, albeit with no signature.

    Your speculation is completely wrong. But in any case, you should address the technical issues in the Exhibit. If you think it is lie, or mistaken, you should say so. I know that it is the truth because Rossi himself quoted the same numbers and facts in conversations with others, who then spoke with me, confirming my copy of the data. For example, he bragged about the fact that I.H. experts were not allowed into the pretend customer site, and he quoted the exact same bogus flow rates.

  • This is just the trap: if it was never attempted to replicate, how can we know, that it never worked?

    As far as anyone knows, it was never constructed in the first place. Lilienfeld was a genius with a long track record of success, and there is no doubt he anticipated many aspects of the transistor. But in 1951 the people at Bell Labs concluded that the design in the patent would not work. Most historians agree.


    In short, it was not replicated because it was never successfully made in the first place.


    I believe the patent was ignored, which is a little surprising given Lilienfeld's stature. When the AT&T patent attorneys found it, they were unpleasantly surprised. There was a series of anxious memos passed between them, and as I said, they rewrote their patent application to change the scope and avoid conflicting with Lilienfeld. See the book "Crystal Fire."

  • Quote

    But in 1951 the people at Bell Labs concluded that the design in the patent would not work. Most historians agree


    The historians and lawyers have nothing to say about it - only the honest replicators. The Lilienfeld worked as a director of Ergon Research Laboratories owned by Magnavox. He had technological background for construction of his transistor multiple-times. But the American's didn't and don't want to admit his priority, that's the whole problem.

    Quote

    In short, it was not replicated because it was never successfully made in the first place.


    This is the "argument" which we can routinely hear in connection with cold fusion too. Should I consider it seriously from people, who never attempted for such replication in the zero place?

  • So I guess we continue the charade of I have a secret and you can't know it. Fine, play that way.

    No, that is wrong. You have mischaracterized what I said. I have no secrets regarding Rossi's 1-year test. Everything I knew about it, and more, is described in Exhibit 5. You don't believe that Exhibit, or you do not understand it, but everything is there. There are no secrets. Rossi did not answer the issues raised in the Exhibit. He filed a lawsuit instead.


    No doubt the people at I.H. know much more about than that Exhibit describes, or than I know.


    Your description of the Exhibit being written by a non-expert or written for the trial is nonsense. It describes exactly the situation and data and the very same numbers that I and many others were shown before the lawsuit, and that Rossi himself told others before the lawsuit. Read the Lewan interview to confirm that. That interview is proof that your timeline is wrong.

  • In short, it was not replicated because it was never successfully made in the first place.


    This is the "argument" which we can routinely hear in connection with cold fusion too.

    Except that it was perfectly true in this case. Lilienfeld's device was never made, as far as anyone knows. If it had been, I am sure he would have said so in 1951. He was still actively working and rather famous. The APS named a prize after him. He lived until 1963. He had many patents in his life and I am sure he would have challenged AT&T if he thought they had infringed. If he had made the thing work, I expect he would have said so.


    If the device could have worked, his patent would be valid whether he actually made a working device or not. There is no rule that you have to actual implement an invention to get a patent. As it was, AT&T had to scale back their patent to avoid infringement.


    It could not have been implemented in the 1930s because they did not have materials of sufficient purity. Also because the design itself was probably not adequate according to experts. Still, it was a remarkable contribution, and Lilienfeld made many successful, important contributions.

    Should I consider it seriously from people, who never attempted for such replication in the zero place?

    What are you talking about?!? This is crazy. The people at Bell Labs made the first successful transistor! They didn't "replicate" Lilienfeld; they made a device similar to his that actually worked! They agreed that he discovered some of the important principles of the device before they did. On the other hand, they got the Nobel prize, and deserved it.

  • Quote

    This is crazy. The people at Bell Labs made the first successful transistor! ... they got the Nobel prize, and deserved it.


    This is just what I'm not sure about (Lillienfield died in 1963, long after first transistor recognition). The people at Bell Labs never attempted to replicate the Lilienfeld transistor, so that they cannot be sure, it doesn't work.


    Quote

    As it was, AT&T had to scale back their patent to avoid infringement.


    This would speak for my Lillienfield priority violation claim.


    Quote
    It could not have been implemented in the 1930s because they did not have materials of sufficient purity. Also because the design itself was probably not adequate according to experts.

    This is just a speculation based on belief, that the FET transistor requires the same purity of materials like this bipolar one (and I even will not comment the "adequateness" of his design, which is out of discussion). Whereas today the FETs are manufactured from carbon nanotubes, graphene, molybdenum sulfide and whatever else unpurified stuffs.

  • These people never attempted to replicate the Lilienfeld transistor, so that they cannot be sure, it doesn't work.

    This is Alice in Wonderland logic. Repeat after me: they did not "attempt to replicate." They ACTUALLY MADE IT WORK. What you say is like saying the Wright brothers "never attempted to replicate Langley." In December 1903 Langley's airplane folded up and crashed into the Potomac "like a handful of mortar." It did not work at all. It could never have worked. Whereas the Wright brother's airplane flew. Do you understand the difference?


    Here, have a look:


    Langley


    Langley_Aerodroem_Launch%208Decemeber1903.JPG


    Wrights


    wright1.jpg


    Do you see the difference?

  • Quote

    This is Alice in Wonderland logic. Repeat after me: they did not "attempt to replicate." They ACTUALLY MADE IT WORK.


    Nope, they never made the MOSFET and MESFET transistors of Lillienfield work. These transistors were made in 1959 by Atalla and Dawon Kahng at Bell Labs.


    New Zealander Dr Robert Adams in 1933 created crystal amplifier which shares close resemblance to bipolar transistor of Shockley. Another bipolar transistor was prepared in 1938, when Robert Pohl and Rudolf Hilsch experimented on potassium-bromide crystals with three electrodes at Gottingen University, Germany. They reported amplification of low-frequency (about 1 Hz) signalss.


    8sOYnEJm.gif


    Quote

    It did not work at all. It could never have worked.


    Nope, this is just a conjecture of yours without substance. Look, I understand my stuff and I recognize, when someone's is trying to BS'ing me (willingly or not).

    You should prepare the Lillienfield's transistor first for being sure, it doesn't work. Actually Lillienfield demonstrated many circuits in his patents, which could be hardly proposed if he wouldn't have some samples well working in hands.